IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1787 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5443 of 2007)

M.L. Lingaiah & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Town Panchayath, Arkalgud & Anr.       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Karnataka Housing Board (for short, “the Board”) constructed 32 houses

under  the  subsidised  rental  housing  scheme.   The  same  were  allotted  to  Town

Panchayat, Arkalgud, District Hasan.  The said allotment was cancelled on 22.2.1992

on the ground of default in the payment of instalments by the allottee.  Thereafter, the

Board allotted the houses to the appellants herein.  Writ Petition No. 38853/1993 filed

by R.K. Ramanna and others in the name of public interest litigation was allowed by

the learned Single Judge and the order of cancellation as also the intimation of the

allotment issued to the appellants were quashed.  Thereafter, Town Panchayat filed

writ petition  no. 33117/2000 for being put in possession of 32 houses.  The same was

disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the observation that with the quashing

of cancellation of allotment, the Town Panchayath will be deemed to be in possession

of  the houses and it  is free to take appropriate

...2/-

- 2 -  

action  against  the  private  respondents.   Writ  Appeal  No.  8037/2003  filed  by  the

appellants was disposed of by the Division Bench on 22.5.2005 with the direction that

pending consideration of allotment of houses, the appellants shall not be dispossessed.

However, on an application made by the respondent in the writ appeal, that order

was recalled and the writ  appeal  was placed for fresh hearing.   By the impugned

order, the Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal with an observation that the

order passed by the learned Single Judge will only amount to recognition of the right

of  the  Town  Panchayat  as  the  allottee  and  to  take  appropriate  action  against  its

tenants.

Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that during the pendency of

the writ appeal, the Board had executed sale deeds in favour of the appellants but this

fact has been overlooked by the Division Bench.  He referred to copies of some of the

sale deeds which have been filed with the special leave petition.

Since the High Court disposed of the writ appeal without considering the

effect of the sale deeds, which are said to have been executed by the Board in favour

of the appellants, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside with direction to

the High Court to decide the writ appeal afresh.

Accordingly,  the appeal is allowed,  impugned order is set aside and the

matter is remitted to the High Court for disposal of the writ appeal in accordance

with law.

It is directed that, till the disposal of the writ appeal, the appellants shall

not be dispossessed from the houses in question.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 23, 2009.